M/S. PAWA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2917/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 October 2017AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to condone any delay and decide the appeal after hearing the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal manually, which was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-compliance with the electronic filing requirement. The Assessing Officer had previously imposed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal dismissed solely for manual filing instead of electronic filing should be decided on merits. The procedural requirement of electronic filing versus the substantive right to appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : SMC : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mathur, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR
Hearing: 18.10.2017Pronounced: 18.10.2017

ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against order passed by the CIT(A) on 19.04.2017 dismissing the assessee’s appeal on the ground that the same was filed manually as against the requirement of filing through electronic mode.

2.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. It is noticed that the Assessing Officer imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for a sum of Rs.9,90,607/-. The assessee preferred appeal against the said order. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee was mandatorily required to file appeal electronically and not manually. The Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in Gurinder Singh Dhillon vs. ITO (ITA No.6595/Del/2016) vide its order dated 19.04.2017 has restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) under identical circumstances with a direction to decide the appeal afresh on merits, after condoning the delay, if any. Respectfully following the precedent, I set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal on merits afresh as per law, after allowing the opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The delay, if any, resulting due to regularization of appeal, should be condoned.

3.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.

The order pronounced in the open court on 18.10.2017.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →